Re: Does xml:base apply to type="html" content?

[M. David Peterson]

I speaking in terms of mashups... If a feed comes from one source, then I would agree...  but mashups from both a syndication as well as an application standpoint are become the primary focus of EVERY major vendor.  Its in this scenario that I see the problem of assuming the xml:base in current context has any value whatsoever.

Pick a planet, any planet, and my point suddenly and immediattelly becomes relavent.

On 3/30/06, Antone Roundy < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Mar 30, 2006, at 10:00 PM, M. David Peterson wrote:
> Then it should be a best practice that if they invoke this, the
> xml:base value should be set upon the "element containing the
> text", in this case, the content element.  Obviously you can't
> simply assume that the current xml:base in context has any direct
> relation, and therefore value to the current entry/content in
> context, as, using Aristotle's use case (and a billion others just
> like it -- if not a billion now, it won't be too long before that
> number is quite realistic, and in fact only scratching the Atom
> feed surface of the not too distant future), there is no way that
> one can simply assume that the current @xml:base value is legit.

I disagree.  The best practice should be to set xml:base explicitly
in any document using relative URIs, and at any point in the document
where the relative URIs appear, ensure that the xml:base in context
is the correct base URI by overriding it if necessary.  If this
practice is followed, and only if this practice is followed, then
consumers will be able to reliably resolve relative URIs.  I see no
justification for assuming that the xml:base in context is invalid
and using some other base URI just because xml:base is set somewhere
other than the containing element.  It's a pretty sorry world if we
not only assume, but operate on the assumption that publishers are
and will continue to be that inept.

Just to amplify one point:
> you can't simply assume that the current xml:base in context has
> any direct relation...

What you can't simply assume is that it the xml:base in context does
NOT have any direct relation to the content.  Part of the point of
XML is that we'll all be better off if consumers rely on publishers
doing things correctly (in this case, getting xml:base right) and
hold publishers to it until they get it right.

Antone

--
<M:D/>

M. David Peterson
http://www.xsltblog.com/